ChrisGraley (29.41)

Why Cap and trade is good for everyone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

36

There are 4 main components to life on Earth as we know it. (Sunlight, Water, Carbon dioxide, and Oxygen)

Obviously we can't possibly go on without taxing at least one of them! Our initial plan to tax the Sun, (Cap and Shade) fell flat, but we like this new one better anyway. With this one we can tax breathing!

That's right, the human species is a huge producer of CO2! We'll tax you if you breathe too much! Phase 2 will be Eugenics! Everyone will want to have a higher breathing allowance and the best way to do that will be to eliminate the non-productive people. (like Ethiopians, Seniors, Homeless people, etc...)

I have confidence that you can trust your government to regulate the very air that you breathe without becoming drunk from the power that goes with it.

Since all the hard work has been done on this policy I'm forging ahead with our next one.

As a homeless, old Ethiopian man I take much offense to your post! I dunno what Eugenics is but it sounds bad. And we don't have much of that Di-Hydrogen stuff anyway, so what are you worried about? jeesh!

I don't want anyone to think that I have taken the imagined problem of global warming too lightly so...

Even though it hasn't been proven that we have a warming problem yet. (We've been warming since the end of the last Ice Age) here's some data to think about...

Greenhouse gases are about 3% of the atmosphere by volume. 97% of which would be water vapor and clouds. The rest being CO2, CH4, Ozone, N2O, etc... CO2 is definately the largest contributer of that second group consisting of 0.037% of the atmosphere. While it's effect on warming is definately greater than water vapor and clouds. The effect is dwarved by the sheer volume of the first group. I would argue that if there were the delicate balance of CO2 and Oxygen then attacking deforestation would be a better goal than cap and trade since it restores that balance. If you don't like my idea about lowering the number of people, than you better increase the amount of vegatation.

Now lets get to a much bigger culprit in percieved global waming and that's sunspots. There is at least a little bit of proven data to back this one up so let's investigate...

A positive correllation was discovered between higher sunspot activity and warmer climates. Your immediate thought would be that when Sunspots occur, the Sun is hotter and that would warm the planet and that would be wrong. The sun gets brighter, but only enough to account for about 20% of the overall increase in temperature, but there seems to be a double whammy in play. Cloud formation seems to increase when we have higher solar activity as well. There are a couple of theories here, but neither has come close to being proven. (They are about as proven as the CO2 theory though) Both have to do with the Sun's cosmic rays and the distortions made by them on the Earth's magnetic field. One Danish theory postulates that the change in the Earth's magnetic field creates tiny aerosol particles that permit more cloud formation. The other theory contends that the cosmic rays disrupt the ozone layer which is a greenhouse gas. (This is just from me only but what if it created tiny aerosol particles of ozone? That would make both theories correct!) The nice thing about the Sunspot theory though is that at least you can objectively observe a corellation when the sunspot activity is weak. In 1645 to 1715 Sunpots basically disappeared. Known as the Maunder Minimum and commonly referred to as "The Little Ice Age" it resulted in much cooler summers and longer winters. A second period called the Dalton minimum from 1795 to 1825 showed the same results, but there was a major volcanic eruption of the Tambora volcano in 1816 the could have contributed to that. It's funny because the CO2 guys are saying that we are causing warming by sending crap into the air have to admit that volcanoes cause cooling by sending crap in the air. That one has been proven! At least I'm getting some real proof from the Sunspot people. I'm not sold, but I'm more sold than with the "Cap and Trade" nuts.

Next, if you were really wanting to save the environment why cap and trade and why not just tax CO2? It would be less taxing on the population, would have less loopholes and would drive innovation at a faster pace. The only reason that I can see for trading credits is to create an environment where someone is paid not to produce. Just like we pay farmers not to grow crops, (a lot of times on land that couldn't grow crops anyway) We'll pay companies not to produce anything. What makes it even worse this time around is that the plan has global aspirations, so the companies that will really benefit are currently defunct companies like those in the Ukraine that aren't producing now anyway. Our politicians can invest in those companies much more discretely than they could do at home.

Last but not least, I'll give you my own theory on global warming which I think is a little better than Sunspots and a lot better than the "believe whatever we tell you on TV" plan.I'll warn you, it is very contraversial an is bound to stir rebellion. Ok here goes...

Hot air makes cold air warmer! I know it sounds crazy, but I'm sure I can prove to you that air that is just 1 inch away from your 98.6 degree body on a 30 degree day is warmer than the air 6 inches away. That house that you like to live in at a comfortable 70 degrees year round gives off heat too. In fact, the car that you drive gives off heat, and the stuff that you buy that is manufactured gives off heat from the machines as well. When we sprung from the last Ice Age there were billions fewer bags of 96.8 degree heat. Too bad when we invented fire there wasn't a cap and trade guy to nip it in the bud right there! I'm willing to bet that a guy driving Hydrogen fuel vehicle in Greenland will still want to drive with the heat on though. The more people we have on this planet, the greater the warming problem will be. The type of energy doesn't matter in the law of conservation of energy. Energy will not disappear in any plan. And thermal energy will still be desired in colder climates and will still be a byproduct of most manufactoring. Which brings us back to my initial joke about Eugenics. This time though it would be better to eliminate the productive people.

Margincall is right about one thing, in that the Earth has a natural method for maintaining balance. It's not the CO2/Oxygen balance that he thinks though. The Earth has way of just killing off the problem. We are the problem and the Earth will kill us off eventually. It might be a volcano, asteroid or a thousand other things, but the Earth will eventually kill us off. When it does, the damage that we did will be reversed. We have the same fate as the dinosaurs and we might be able to prolong fate, but we can't change it. Even if we were smart enough to beat Mother Earth, the Sun will eventually explode or our galaxy will collide with another one etc...

The best advice that I can give anyone, is to live like you know you are dying. It's OK to try and make the world a better place if you have the mindset to accomplish it. If on the otherhand you just do what Oprah tells you to do because you like her and she wouldn't possibly lie, then just shoot yourself in the head now and save us all some CO2.

I regret to inform you that you have been placed between Ethiopians and Seniors on the Eugenics list. It may take a couple of months to get your paperwork processed so we would like to ask you to kindly not exhale until we give you further instructions unless you are within 7.3 yards of a deep sea thermal vent. You may be able to extend your time on this planet, if you could point out a few crustacians that owe use back taxes in a lineup.